5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Mielec.
6.  The applicant is married with a child. Prior to her application for an early-retirement pension she had been employed until 1996 and paid social security contributions to the State.
7.  On 23 April 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so‑called “EWK” pension.
8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her son’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist centre for nephrology on 16 March 2001. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1989) was in need of his parent’s constant care.
9.  On 17 May 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 April 2001 in the net amount of 527.64 Polish zlotys (PLN).
10.  On 19 September 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the Cabinet’s Ordinance of 15 May 1989 on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dn. 15 maja 1989 w sprawie uprawnień do wcześniejszej emerytury pracowników opiekujących się dziećmi wymagającymi stałej opieki) (“the 1989 Ordinance”).
11.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early-retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.
12.  On 10 October 2003 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the SSB’s decision and restored the applicant’s right to a EWK pension. The court relied on experts’ opinions who stressed that the applicant’s son suffered from acute glomerulonephritis and nocturnal enuresis.
13.  The SSB appealed against the first-instance judgment.
14.  On 4 March 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first-instance judgment and upheld the SSB’s decision of 19 September 2002.
15.  On 7 October 2004 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal.
16.  Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return her early-retirement benefits paid by the Social Security Board, despite the revocation of her right to an early-retirement pension.
17.  The Government submitted that prior to the grant of a EWK pension the applicant had not worked. Her last employment contract had been terminated in 1996. After the revocation of the EWK pension the applicant had not worked. The applicant’s husband worked, as did her son (from 2005).
18.  In addition, the Government submitted information as regards the various types of social benefits available in Poland. However, they did not specify which of those benefits, if any, were available in the applicant’s situation.
19.  Under the relevant laws currently in force, it appears that the applicant will qualify for a regular retirement pension in 2022.
20.  Some 130 applications arising from a similar fact pattern have been brought to the Court. The majority of the applicants form the Association of Victims of the SSB (Stowarzyszenie Osób Poszkodowanych przez ZUS) (“the Association”), an organisation monitoring the practices of the Social Security Board in Poland, in particular in the Podkarpacki region.
21.  Out of all applications lodged with the Court, about twenty-four applicants decided not to lodge a cassation appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal given in their case.
22.  One hundred-and-four applicants lodged cassation appeals against the final judgments given in their cases. The Supreme Court entertained and dismissed on the merits fifteen appeals. In eighty-one applications the Supreme Court refused to entertain cassation appeals on the ground that they did not raise any important legal issues or require the Supreme Court to give a new interpretation to legal provisions which raised serious doubts or gave rise to ambiguity in the jurisprudence of the domestic courts. In the remaining eight cases cassation appeals were rejected for failure to comply with various procedural requirements.